<p>didn't any of you intellectuals see the possible story fabrication....think about it, two days before the guy is a witness and possibly national tv, he's found beat up outside a topless bar. What ELSE do you think he would tell his wife, and the press. </p>
<p>Collegeperson: The Daily Cal just printed the 'she said' side of things, as they usually do when they have an agenda ('get out of Alamos') like our favorite paper in NYC.</p>
<p>jab93: Did you not read my post: I stated "ALLEGED" indoctrination. Didn't say there is actually any -- merely that anyone can come up with a complaint and that seems to be the loudest one by far. It was simply used as my point that the university can be attacked for -ANYTHING- ranging from "indoctrination" to petty quabbles about the FOOTBALL TEAM.</p>
<p>And while I am more conservative on the average than a good chunk of the student body, I feel pretty comfortable most of the time, even at the risk of being shouted down by a few intolerant wanks. I try to do what seems best for the situation, not what some leftist or rightest moral compass tells me. As a result, I'm no fan of the GOP and the Democratic Party recieves just about the same amount of respect. <em>Holds up his Libertarian card</em></p>
<p>Advice: Learn to read boyo before you unleash on people. And I read everything. Ever hear the expression, "Know thy enemy?" Of course I watch Faux News, read O'Reilley, watch Hannity -- but I also read Al Franken and Jon Stewart and watch CNN. Both sides have excellent points and the only real way to understand who you are going to holding arms up against is to know their positions and find the holes. A good debater does not limit himself to one side of the argument. He or she will make concessions, if only to find the greater logical holes.</p>
<p>And now my beef with the university: The bureacracy. It takes 12 years to get ANYTHING done... (This is my beef of the year, I had surgery on Monday -- nasty stuff, and Tang/Blue Cross are being asses about paying for a necessary surgery.)</p>
<p>andrew...</p>
<p>I apologize for my own tirade directed at you.
I jumped to conclusions.</p>
<p>I am perhaps overly sensitive to the supposed "oppression" of conservatives on campus... it annoys the hell out of me when some conservatives, usually those with incredible power already, claim that they are poor helpless victims.</p>
<p>peace</p>
<p>Hehe, no problem. Just gotta stand strong when people try to push you around. It's all good. </p>
<p>And the Conservatives aren't helpless victims at all. In fact, they are one of the largest and most powerful groups on campus at this point -- so it does get my ire sometimes as well. Though in their defense, I do see some pretty childish things slung their way, but who really knows who started at it because they love to hurl it right back at the leftists. Really, my suggestion is: Get some popcorn and enjoy the show.</p>
<p>The new president of the asuc is a republican and was endorsed by the Cal patriot, so I don't want to hear any complaining about the minority conservatives not being able to do anything on campus.</p>
<p>Actually, Manny is a friend of mine and has been since I got to Cal. He's a major-league democrat. He's got a good head on his shoulders though. I'm glad we got him for ASUC President. The Cal Patriot supported him because he was the most moderate candidate.</p>
<p>Really. Huh, I guess I just assumed that he was a republican because the patriot endorsed him as well as the Berkeley College Republicans. That's a little strange, no?</p>
<p>It's actually not strange at all. Just because BCR and the Patriot endorse him doesn't mean he lines up totally with their ideal society. He was just the closest match. If you read the platforms for like CalSERVE and DAAP, you would see there is little if any connect between them and more moderate and conservative elements on campus. </p>
<p>Manny was the closest match, so they endorsed him.</p>
<p>Lesson: The world isn't totally black and white.</p>
<p>Yeah, but the patriot is a completely, completely right-wing magazine and I would think that they wouldn't soften their views to support someone that they didn't feel was going to try to further their agenda. The world isn't black and white for me, but for the BCR and the Patriot it certainly is.</p>
<p>Actually, it really isn't. The Patriot does have the right-wing slant nailed down. But there are articles that do seem at odds with the predominant neocon ideology. </p>
<p>Just recently, there is a criticism of the government intervention in the Schaivo case in one of their papers and how government overstepped their bounds. There are plenty of articles like that in the Patriot, which like Smartass, I do read because it is thought provoking. And they do offer point/counterpoint articles which are often very interesting because you get two radically different "conservative" view points. The paper is all things conservative, whether it is more old-school "conservative" (See Lockean Liberal, etc <-- those are my favorite articles) or more in line with the Neocon stuff. (Which scares the hell outta me.) </p>
<p>BCR/Patriot didn't really soften their position at all, I don't think. They took the one that was tactically best for them and I commend them for opening their arms to a candidate who is at least moderate, rather than writing some pithy editorial like: "None, all of the candidates are examples of liberals and what is wrong with the University." I think it showed a great deal of maturity on their part. In fact, a lot of the people they endorsed were moderates or democrats. But in general, they will support the Student Action and Squealch! Parties.</p>
<p>collegeperson12
["but if this is true -- it really takes the cake. I don't think it is, but if it is... I'm sorry, but the university is never seeing one penny from me in alumni donations."</p>
<p>Oh but this is true. It's from Berkeley's own campus newspaper. Why would the DailyCal make slanderous lies about itself? Unfortunately, this is 100 percent true.]</p>
<p>I disagree with your comment. Most student newspaper, including the Daily Cal, are student-run. This means that they can print whatever they want, regardless of what the university feels. Of course they do have their agenda, but will stay near the truth, probably. Just dont think that if something came from a campuses newspaper, it is truth and verified by the campus.</p>
<p>So a whistleblower get beat up outside of a bar where he was supposed to meet an informant. This is happening at a time when the UC Board of Regents is negotiating a national lab contract. There's no connection here whatsoever?</p>
<p>Coincidental Correlation
(post hoc ergo propter hoc )</p>
<hr>
<p>Definition:
The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this".
This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when
it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the
one thing was caused by the other.</p>
<p>From <a href="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/posthoc.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/posthoc.htm</a></p>
<p>Given this, Gutrade, it is possible that there is a connection. However, no proof is present that this is the case, and the article <a href="http://www.krqe.com/archives/expanded.asp?RECORD_KEY%5bNews%5d=ID&ID%5BNews%5D=10436%5B/url%5D">http://www.krqe.com/archives/expanded.asp?RECORD_KEY%5bNews%5d=ID&ID%5BNews%5D=10436</a> points to no connection whatsoever.</p>
<p>Bias</p>
<p>Definition:
A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. </p>
<p>Given this, DRab, it is possible that your bias for UC Berkeley blinds you from the truth.</p>
<p>The same could be said for your bias against Berkeley.</p>
<p>The article doesn't mention Berkeley in particular, just the UC in general.</p>
<p>"Facts, evidence and information obtained during the course of this investigation has led investigators to believe that the altercation involving Mr. Hook is an isolated incident and is in no way related to Mr. Hook's whistleblower status at the Los Alamos National Laboratories," Santa Fe Deputy Police Chief Eric Johnson said in a statement.</p>
<p>That's cute, "ubermench," but did you even read my post? Here's the important part again, for you, my pseudo-German. </p>
<p>Given this, Gutrade, it is possible that there is a connection. However, no proof is present that this is the case, and the article <a href="http://www.krqe.com/archives/expand...5BNews%5D=10436%5B/url%5D">http://www.krqe.com/archives/expand...5BNews%5D=10436</a> points to no connection whatsoever.</p>
<p>Yes, like any individual I am biased, but is that what is currently driving my logic? No. Where is that proof that there is a connection? Oh yeah, not to be found. Anywhere.</p>
<p>hahaha, this thread just goes to show how gullible collegeperson12 and gutrade are. It's official now: Gutrade IS the dumbest person on this forum. The guy who was beaten up had to explain to his wife why he was at a titty-bar.....so of course he was "asked" to "meet people" there. Riiiiiiiiight. Here's another news link....
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/09/whistleblower.beaten.ap/%5B/url%5D">http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/09/whistleblower.beaten.ap/</a></p>
<p>No, I think Gutrade is right. Berkeley is mafia run. And we should embrace the mafiosos within us. Now if you'll excuse me, some old bastard is getting wise to us and I can't find my lead pipe or brass knuckles anywhere.</p>